A Contingency Collection Policy for the Digital Library in Periods of Social Unrest, Political Movements, and Natural Disasters Davina R. Harrison, M.A., Webster University, St. Louis, Missouri; MLIS Pending (December 2018) University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama1 How can librarians and archivists effectively carry out the traditional responsibility of collecting, organizing, preserving, and providing information in the turbulent environment of the coming decade? It is clear that our traditional ways of operating are being transformed. The continuing excellence of libraries and archives will depend on our ability to control the flood of publications and records and to cope with the demands of the emerging information society. To meet this challenge, libraries are using collection management as a more systematic approach to shaping library collections.2 These words were written by Jutta Reed-Scott over three decades ago. The changes that she spoke of when describing this flood of publications and records revolutionizing archives in the mid-1980s are almost laughable when compared to the tidal wave of digital media we are faced with today. Collection policies serve to create focus of structure in an archive or library’s collection activity. When properly tied to the institution’s mission, they can help set collection goals that are appropriate for the organized growth of a collection. In this paper, I will examine one project where its founding institution looked beyond their history of passively waiting for archival material, generally related to dead white men, to be acquired through donation from family members. Instead the project’s team went out into the community to collect primary sources from a traditionally underrepresented population during a period of social revolution: The Ferguson Project.3 Although preceded by projects like The Hurricane Digital Memory Bank, The September 11 Digital Archive, and Our Marathon (a tribute to the lives lost in the bombing at the Boston Marathon in 2013), the Ferguson Project was revolutionary in its fulfillment of the need to document unrest in a period that will forever change racial politics and how the citizens of the world react to violence against minorities. Next, I will examine the idea of development and use of a contingency collection policy to be used in the event of Social Unrest, Political Movements, and Natural Disasters. Finally, I offer a sample contingency collection policy that I have crafted for a hypothetical digital library which is offered as an example of what such a policy might look like. Documenting Ferguson At this point, the story of Michael Brown’s death on August 9, 2014 has been retold too many times to count. Brown, an 18-year-old African American man was fatally shot following a struggle with Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, a municipality outside of Saint Louis with an approximate population of 21,000. Several witnesses came forward to assert that Brown was in the process of surrendering when Wilson fired the fatal shots. Some witnesses asserted that Brown had his hands up in the air, gesturing submission when he was shot. Later, “Hands up, don’t shoot” would become a rallying cry for protesters. Immediately following the shooting, protests erupted in Ferguson. These protests – some peaceful, some involving violence, vandalism and looting – continued for over a week in Ferguson. On August 10 what began as peaceful candlelight vigil led to the arrival of approximately 150 local officers in riot gear, some armed with military-grade weaponry. A group of civilians reacted by confronting the police and vandalizing or looting local businesses. Almost immediately after the shooting, Twitter erupted with the story of Michael Brown’s death. According to the PEW Research Center, on August 14, the peak day of Twitter stories about Michael Brown’s killing, there were more than 3.6 million tweets about the events taking place around his death in Ferguson.4 While these events were still unfolding, staff of the Washington University of Saint Louis Libraries and university faculty, led by university librarian Jeffrey Trzeciak, fashioned a plan to collect and preserve local, national and international materials covering Brown’s death. This material covered memorials, community reactions and citizen protests. These efforts developed into a living archive known as Documenting Ferguson. This project was a new endeavor for Washington University Libraries in that for the first time, the libraries were archiving events as they took place.5 A team was formed from subject librarians, staff from library administration and Special Collections, Washington University’s Center for Diversity and Inclusion, the Scholarly Publishing Department, and one faculty member. One of their first tasks was to create a website where visitors could upload digital media. Ease of community submissions was enhanced with the creation of a form in Omeka, the Washington University Library’s content management system for online digital collections. This allowed multiple image or media files to be submitted at once. The form also included minimal accompanying metadata and an agreement to the project’s terms and conditions.6 Next, a process for archiving social media was set up using Omeka and the Internet Archive’s tool Archive-It. For long-term stability of the data, it was also stored on the Libraries’ Fedora servers to preserve the metadata and manage digital content. Essentially, Omeka was used as the public interface and Fedora served as the data access layer for preservation and future coding activities.7 A second submission route was created when the team collaborated with staff at Archive-It, a subscription-based web-archiving service. They chose Archive-It because most of the content they were interested in was web-based blog entries, social media posts or online news clips. One of the services Archive-It provided was the collection of daily tweets. There were so many relative postings on Twitter that the team at Washington University simply could not keep up with them.8 Bergis Jules – who worked with Meredith Evans, former associate university librarian at Washington University – later recounted in an interview just how powerful the activity on Twitter was: “We saw that the Twitter conversations would correct [and] change the narrative of whatever the mass media was trying to push.”9 This issue is linked to one of the stated goals of Documenting Ferguson which is “to provide a space to tell an alternative narrative other than what is being presented by the mainstream media regarding the community’s response to what happened in Ferguson.”10 The simple act of gathering materials from people with no Washington University affiliation was yet another way that Documenting Ferguson was a unique project for the university’s archives. Because of this the project grew from roots of collaboration with the public.11 The university had no way of telling what the public would upload to their collection; therefore, they took a great risk by soliciting contributions from the public. It is because of the team’s willingness to step outside of the box of their traditional collecting policies that we are left with a living archive of the events surrounding civil unrest in Ferguson following the 2014 killing of Michael Brown. The Living Archive In my research, I found it more challenging to define a “living archive” than to find examples. Writing in 2014, librarian Tamara Rhodes attempted to trace the evolution of the term. A search throughout newspaper databases yields references to the term ‘living archive’ when describing an archive of specialty plants, an individual who has an abundance of knowledge of various past events, or reviving forgotten plays that capture the social issues of their times. In these forms, ‘living’ takes on a more literal sense as it refers to the actual subject or to the liveliness of the medium.12 Rhodes calls our attention to a 1996 Library Journal article in which the author, Boyd R. Collins tells us that looking beyond the fluff populating much of internet-based content, the web itself was gaining the “purpose as a place of historical memory.”13 Drawing from the work of Rhodes and Collins, for this paper I define a “living archive” as an internet-accessible collection of multi-media resources arranged to tell a story, usually including input or contribution (in the form of comments or the resources themselves) from users and community members outside of the archive. Furthermore, I assert that the “living archive” differs from the “community archive” because while a significant number of contributions come from the community, the project was governed and initiated by professional librarians and educators, instead of being formed from a grass-roots community group. Like many projects within the “living archive” and “community archive” category, the Documenting Ferguson project falls into what Kate Theimer writing for The American Archivist described as an Archives 2.0 in 2011. An Archives 2.0 was identified as a transparent, open, user centered archive, where the public is invited to contribute to an innovative database through popular software applications including trending social networking sites.14 A Contingency Collection Policy I urge digital archives in universities, cultural institutions and public libraries to develop a collection plan specially designed for social unrest, revolution or disasters. This contingency plan would be a separate set of guidelines to add to their traditional collection policy, or a separate collection plan altogether. The reasons for this are 1) these situations require swift movement and decision making, 2) this policy would help support the archives’ social responsibility to their community, 3) this approach would capture information about more diverse subcultures in the local area, thus enhancing racial and class diversity within the collection by focusing on every day people, instead of just prominent figures, and 4) such a policy would bring a focus on current events to archives.